Matthews v Hargreaves (No.2)

Matthews v Hargreaves (No. 2) involved the applicant alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and criminal record, with the matter being brought before the court under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The applicant, Matthews, claimed that the respondent, Hargreaves, discriminated against them due to their disability and criminal record in employment matters. The Australian Human Rights Commission had declined to continue with the inquiry, leaving Matthews to pursue the matter in court.

The court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint regarding discrimination based on criminal record, given that the Commission had declined to proceed. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the application should be joined with another application (PEG144/2010) that involved the same parties and alleged similar discrimination and conduct. The court also had to decide on the procedural steps to be taken, including document filing and service timelines, as well as the scheduling of mediation and potential hearing dates.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint related to discrimination based on criminal record since the Australian Human Rights Commission had declined to continue with the inquiry and no other appropriate remedy was available. The court also dismissed part of the application for want of jurisdiction, and ordered that the applications be joined, with all future papers to be filed in the PEG144/2010 application. The court set out detailed procedural orders regarding the filing and service of affidavits and documents, the scheduling of mediation, and the potential hearing dates if mediation was unsuccessful.

The court made several orders to manage the proceedings, including dismissing part of the application for lack of jurisdiction, joining the applications, and setting specific timelines for document filing and service. If mediation was unsuccessful, the matter was to be listed for a hearing on specified dates in June 2011, with both parties required to attend in person. The costs of the proceedings were reserved, and the court directed that all future papers be filed in the PEG144/2010 application.